A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

1. On May 2014, the Defendant: (a) entered into a construction site located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D, and entered into a contract for construction works with E management director F, a company in Gangseo-gu; and (b) entered into a construction agreement for construction works (hereinafter “construction agreement of this case”); (c) the contractor H in the contractor H H column by using a shot-type coloring pen in the contractor H; (d) entered the contractor H in the mix, address column, and resident number column into the said “I”; and (e) placed the Defendant’s seal on the H legal entity in his/her name.

Accordingly, for the purpose of uttering, the Defendant forged the Chapter 1 of the instant execution agreement in the name of H, a private document on rights and obligations.

2. The Defendant, at the same time and place as above 1 paragraph, exercised the instant construction agreement, which was forged, to E-management director F, a corporation, who was aware of the forgery, as seen above, as if it were a document duly formed.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Some of the protocol concerning the examination of the suspect against the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. Each investigation report (the statement in the currency of the representative director HH, a stock company);

1. The Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the instant construction agreement does not constitute forgery of the instant construction agreement, as it was comprehensively delegated by H (hereinafter “H”) the authority to prepare documents.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted by this Court, and ① the Defendant, among the “G Corporation”, prepared a subcontract agreement with L Co., Ltd. and E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”), provided that this electrical construction was conducted without a construction contract.

It is recognized that the E's electrical construction was actually carried out only by oral agreement without the first contract, and the defendant was not able to receive upon the continuous request of E.

H’s employee reduction.